TENCES; ROBBERY.) W. DE B. H.) As the common law of the United States had its source in English precedents, the fundamental principles as to larceny are similar. They have, however, been altered and extended by statute and decision in every State to a widely varyihg de gree. The common law requirement of asportation, for example, has been abolished by statute in Texas, while the courts in other States disagree as to what amounts to asportation. Legislation has dealt also with the requirement that the property be taken from the "possession" of another, but the principle is still difficult of application in some circumstances and the problem has not been consistently or even generally obviated. Various dealings with property which are not larceny, nor even criminal, at com mon law—such, e. g., as embezzlement, theft of growing fruit, un authorized taking of an automobile without intent permanently to deprive the owner thereof—have been made criminal by statute to some extent in every State and have frequently been either de nominated larceny or made chargeable as larceny. A distinction between grand and petit larceny is still commonly recognized in legislation as affecting the amount or character of punishment, the jurisdiction of courts, powers of arrest, or other matters, but the diacritical value varies both in the different States and in some States according to the different objectives. Thus in New York the crime is divided into grand larceny in the first degree, punish able by a maximum of io years' imprisonment; grand larceny in the second degree, 5 years ; petit larceny, I year. The division
points are in general $500 and $5o, but theft of property of less than $50 may be grand larceny in the first degree under some circumstances. In Michigan there are no degrees of larceny and the terms "grand" and "petit" are ignored in the statutes, but the circumstances or a value of over $25 determine the punishment. American statutes making the possession of certain things unlaw ful—notably the National Prohibition Act declaring that no prop erty right shall exist in unlawfully possessed liquor—give greater importance in that country than in England to the question of whether one can be convicted of larceny for the theft of chattels which are incapable of lawful possession. By strictly legalistic reasoning one inferior court came to the decision that larceny of such things is impossible, but the great weight of authority holds the taker guilty of larceny. Because there is no common law of the United States as a nation, larceny as a crime against the Fed eral Government is wholly statutory. Congressional legislation has been confined to particular situations such as the theft of goods in interstate commerce, or in the possession of certain officials, etc. (J. B. WA.)